linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v8 15/15] xfs: allow sysadmins to specify a maximum atomic write limit at mount time

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20250423150110.GB25675@frogsfrogsfrogs>
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2025 08:01:10 -0700
From: "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc: John Garry <john.g.garry@...cle.com>, brauner@...nel.org,
	viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, jack@...e.cz, cem@...nel.org,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, dchinner@...hat.com,
	linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	ojaswin@...ux.ibm.com, ritesh.list@...il.com,
	martin.petersen@...cle.com, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-block@...r.kernel.org, catherine.hoang@...cle.com,
	linux-api@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 15/15] xfs: allow sysadmins to specify a maximum
 atomic write limit at mount time

On Wed, Apr 23, 2025 at 10:32:09AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 22, 2025 at 12:27:39PM +0000, John Garry wrote:
> > From: "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>
> > 
> > Introduce a mount option to allow sysadmins to specify the maximum size
> > of an atomic write.  If the filesystem can work with the supplied value,
> > that becomes the new guaranteed maximum.
> > 
> > The value mustn't be too big for the existing filesystem geometry (max
> > write size, max AG/rtgroup size).  We dynamically recompute the
> > tr_atomic_write transaction reservation based on the given block size,
> > check that the current log size isn't less than the new minimum log size
> > constraints, and set a new maximum.
> > 
> > The actual software atomic write max is still computed based off of
> > tr_atomic_ioend the same way it has for the past few commits.
> 
> The cap is a good idea, but a mount option for something that has
> strong effects for persistent application formats is a little suboptimal.
> But adding a sb field and an incompat bit wouldn't be great either.
> 
> Maybe this another use case for a trusted xattr on the root inode like
> the autofsck flag?

That would be even better, since you could set it at mkfs time and it
would persist until the next xfs_property set call.

--D